If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   One of Mitt Romney's possible first actions if he were elected president would be to eliminate hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 260
    More: Sick, Mitt Romney, same-sex couples, National Organization for Marriage, LGBT people, miscarriage of justice, Bay Buchanan, 10th Amendment, hospital visitation rights  
•       •       •

5495 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Oct 2012 at 11:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



260 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-24 12:45:00 AM

Dr. DJ Duckhunt: Is this before or after Trade-War with China?


I used to own at Trade Wars back in the door game days. If Romney is elected, I will swallow my liberal pride and he can leave this one with me. It'll give him more time to keep his boot heel on the throats of the gays, the women, the atheists, the poors and Big Bird.

/Loafer heel? Like he wears boots.
 
2012-10-24 12:46:08 AM

EvilEgg: Good for him. Hospitals are boring and no one really wants to visit, they just feel they are obliged to, now the gays have a built in excuse.

Now I am even more jealous, they get style, neatness, they don't get pressured to marry, now this. If they get the right to avoid those god awful jack and Jill wedding showers I'm calling my congressman.


All right, that's pretty damned funny.
 
2012-10-24 12:47:42 AM

ArkAngel: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Mitt's gonna have a busy first day...

8:00-Noon: Inauguration
Noon-12:15: Restrict civil rights for gay couples.
12:15 -12:30: Tax Cuts
12:30-1:15: Lunch
1:15-1:30 : Trade war with China
1:30-1:35: Repeal Obamacare
1:35-2:45: Approve Keystone Pipeline
2:45-3:00: Open all Federal lands for oil drilling.
3:00-4:30: Create 12 million new jobs
4:30-5:00: Tax Cuts
5:00-5:15: Call Ahmadinejad, ask if he has Prince Albert in the can.
5:15-5:30: "Reinstate" Work for Welfare requirements.
5:30-6:00: Meet with Democrat and Republican leaders in Congress
6:00-6:30: Bust Federal Unions
6:30-7:00: Issue executive orders reversing all of Obama's executive orders
7:00-8:00: Light Supper
8:00-8:30: Reinstate the Mexico City Policy
8:30-9:00: Secure borders and ask all illegals to self-deport.

9:00-10:00: Death
10:00-1100: Death
11:00-12:00: Death
12:00-1:00: Lunch


What about the afternoon tea?
 
2012-10-24 12:48:04 AM

Nrokreffefp: I greatly dislike Mitt, but anyone up in arms about this is a chicken-little style moron. The president has no ability to make a decree to this nature, and he loves money more than he loves the idea of becoming his own God. Porn is big money and so are abortions. He will NEVER touch these things.


Ahh yes, the abortion industrial complex. Amniotic gold right there.
 
2012-10-24 12:48:09 AM
well fark that
 
2012-10-24 12:50:54 AM
One of the best things I have ever seen was back in 2008 when my best friend's partner of 12 years wound up in the hospital with an aortic dissection.

This hambeast of a nurse tried to keep him out of the ICU after his operation because he wasn't "real family" which started my friend on an HUGE loud fit.

The cardiologist came out asking what the hell was going on and once the situation was explained proceeded to lay down the most epic verbal beatdown on the nurse which left her in incoherent, terrified tears.

/csb
 
2012-10-24 12:50:56 AM

coeyagi: colon_pow: the author built a beautiful strawman. then kicked it's ass!!

well done.

Your post - t would have been just as effective if you placed 13 ellipses in a row followed by "best part. forever!"


I miss winterwhile. His schtick was years ahead of the other agitants.
 
2012-10-24 12:51:24 AM

Amos Quito: So, who should be allowed do decide such things? The Federal government?


Yeah. If I were Gay and my significant other were to get seriously sick while we were out of state, I sure wouldn't want to be on the Internet trying to figure out if I could visit him where we were, and then deciding if it was worth it to risk moving him to a closer state that DOES allow this.

Sometimes the Feds are there to provide consistency. It's the same thing with education. If we take away Fed oversight of schooling requirements, you're going to run into kids with High School diplomas that aren't accepted because they came from a state like Kansas or Utah that doesn't give two farks about the quality of education their students get.

Yeah, I see your other argument about how it is individual states who have granted Gay marriage rights, and not the Feds, but I stand by my statement. Besides, Romney would be repealing a Federal policy already in place to TAKE AWAY this right, so your analogy doesn't really work, even though it is related.
 
2012-10-24 12:51:37 AM

grimlock1972: Not like he has the gay vote right now anyway.


Outside of Log Cabin Republicans, no. But I'm hoping people like my family and friends from a Midwestern small town who have a history of voting Republican who are now congratulating me on my same-sex engagement and welcoming my partner into the family start to think about that vote in November.
 
2012-10-24 12:51:40 AM

Brick-House: To all the libtards out there, here's a full moon to howell at.

[sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com image 320x320]

With all the BS that needs to be fixed, you really think he's going to spend a second on this. Libtard Logic -Yes, they are that stupid.


Excellent point! It will be just like in 2010 when the Tea Party took Congress on the theme of Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, that's just what they focused on. They didn't waste time voting 30 times to repeal Obamacare, or vote to defund Planned Parenthood, or suppress women's access to abortion. It would indeed be stupid to think Romney would ignore something as important as the economy to work solely on social issues.  Libtards indeed!
 
2012-10-24 12:53:33 AM

GoodyearPimp: I need a Romney supporter (or anyone that supports this sort of change) to explain to me how this does anything positive. There are gay people having sex right now and no matter how hard I try, I can never stop that from happening even if I outlawed that particular behavior in every country in the world. Gay people visiting at the hospital affects my life even less than that, but I'll bet it improves their lives quite a bit.


I'm not a Romney supporter but I talk to several a day. I'd go with

A) Denial
B) Since you're calling me out I'll begrudgingly agree but it doesn't matter bc Obama is so awful
C) (likely said in oblique terms) that's encouraging the "lifestyle"

Or the best and rarest case scenario,

D) I'll admit that's f--ked up, supporting Romney bc my family is still struggling economically maybe I'll reconsider

/don't talk to folks about LGBT issues, still can call responses based on completely unsolicited Obama rant responses
 
2012-10-24 12:53:42 AM

GoodyearPimp: I need a Romney supporter (or anyone that supports this sort of change) to explain to me how this does anything positive. There are gay people having sex right now and no matter how hard I try, I can never stop that from happening even if I outlawed that particular behavior in every country in the world. Gay people visiting at the hospital affects my life even less than that, but I'll bet it improves their lives quite a bit.


If little Susie and Billy grow up in a world where the government actively condones and protects homosexuality then how will it look when Mommy and Daddy and pastor Bob have to say that such a lifestyle choice is wrong?

And why should taxpayer dollars go to supporting a lifestyle that the majority deems sinful?

Next you'll be saying that we have to respect marriages of other religions. As if any Hindu couple living in sin is really married in the eyes of the Lord!

We'll be backsliding into sin in no time if we stay on the course Obama has us on. Protestants and Catholics living together! Mass hysteria!
 
2012-10-24 12:54:17 AM

Dinobot: What about the afternoon tea?


Can't drink tea. He's Mormon, and the Church just made it official. The Words of Wisdom specifically mentions 'hot' drinks, which includes coffee and tea, but Coke and other caffeinated beverages are A-OK.

Link
 
2012-10-24 12:56:25 AM

Mikey1969: Rename Obamacare "Romneycare"


Well, why not? That would fix the part that people don't like.

theobamapart.jpg
 
2012-10-24 12:56:47 AM

Brytanica1: One of the best things I have ever seen was back in 2008 when my best friend's partner of 12 years wound up in the hospital with an aortic dissection.

This hambeast of a nurse tried to keep him out of the ICU after his operation because he wasn't "real family" which started my friend on an HUGE loud fit.

The cardiologist came out asking what the hell was going on and once the situation was explained proceeded to lay down the most epic verbal beatdown on the nurse which left her in incoherent, terrified tears.

/csb


There are good people in this world. Must not forget.

My friend was worried his douchey conservative relatives would come out of the ignoring him woodwork to oppose his husband in such a scenario. As awesome as that doctor totally was I sadly wouldn't blame him if he deferred to blood relatives esp in certain states.
 
2012-10-24 12:58:55 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: You say that like we currently have that right. We don't. I've relayed this story before, but the first time I tried to visit my SO in the hospital, I was called every slur under the sun, threatened with arrest and thrown out of the building. In fact, this is a major part of why I don't believe in the half-assed cop-out that is "Civil unions."

/I usually don't care too much about the insults, but that one got me.
//They wouldn't even tell me whether she was going to survive or not.
///She did, thank everything.




Civil Unions are bullshiat, I agree, but maybe you didn't read all of TFA?


In April 2010, recognizing the extraordinary miscarriage of justice and horrifying stories of families being split apart when fathers, mothers, husbands and wives were barred from visiting one another in the hospital, Barack Obama signed an executive order mandating that any hospital that receives government funding (including Medicare and Medicaid) recognize the relationships between gays and lesbians.

Here's the executive order itself
Link
 
2012-10-24 01:00:09 AM
My friend is gay and her SO had to go in for emergency surgery and knowing she could be hassled (she has faced bullshiat like this all her life) she just told the hospital staff she was her sister and had not one issue. She shouldn't have had to do that but it was better than not being allowed in at all. Romney can EABOD.
 
2012-10-24 01:00:48 AM

Dinobot: What about the afternoon tea?


HEINZ BAKED BEANS
 
2012-10-24 01:01:34 AM

Mikey1969: Dinobot: What about the afternoon tea?

Can't drink tea. He's Mormon, and the Church just made it official. The Words of Wisdom specifically mentions 'hot' drinks, which includes coffee and tea, but Coke and other caffeinated beverages are A-OK.

Link


But hot cocoa is okay.

So it's not hot drinks, or caffeine, but hot caffeinated drinks.

Arbitrary bullshiat made to keep people in line. Very cultish.
 
2012-10-24 01:01:53 AM

Amos Quito: dletter: What I'd really love to see if Romney decided to have some sort of Q&A with 4th and 5th graders, and explain to a 10 year old who asks why he thinks his two parents who happen to be both women shouldn't be able to visit each other in the hospital like other kids parents can, or why a state should decide that.


So, who should be allowed do decide such things? The Federal government?

It wasn't long ago that same sex marriage was recognized NOWHERE in the US. If the decision were left up to the Feds, do you think there is any chance that it would be recognized in the US today?

Seriously?

It took STATES acting under their Constitutionally endowed powers to break that grip - first one, then another and another.

Just about every time I hear "states rights" mentioned, some asshat brings up slavery, and tries to claim that only right-wing bigots want states rights.

I laugh.

A centralized authoritarian government is all good and well as long as you happen to agree with what it is doing, but the worm has a habit of turning, and first thing you know, you're FARKED.

So if you give GodSaint Obama the power to dictate such matters to your favor (YAY), don't cry when his replacement uses that same power to do exactly what you DON'T want (oh shiat!)

I've been watching as we rapidly shift toward a centralized authoritarian regime over the past several decades, and THAT is some scary shiat. 


/BE careful what you wish for


The problem with your argument re states' deciding who gets to do what is that some states will recognize certain things (like gay marriage) and some states won't. There are a few basic rights the Constitution and constitutional case law agree that we all are supposed to have via the Full Faith & Credit Clause and the Immunities & Privileges Clause; but the problem is that only the Federal government has the power to enforce those rights. That was what happened during the Civil Rights era, beginning with Brown v. Board of Education: The southern states didn't want to extend those privileges, citing states' rights, and the Federal government said, Sorry, you have to do it.

In some cases, allowing states to say who gets to do what inside their own borders is fine and dandy, assuming only the state's money is being spent. If, for instance, California wants to say medical marijuana dispensaries are okay and our cops are not going to bust them, that's our prerogative; but we can't stop the Feds from coming in and shutting the whole thing down. When it comes to certain fundamental rights, like voting, then states have no rights then can enforce against the will of the federal government. And where states receive federal monies (money that ALL Americans contribute to) the Feds have the right to tell the states what to do in order to keep receiving that money--like, for instance, hospitals having to allow same-sex couples access to each other in order to get Medicare money.

States cannot have the kind of "rights" they think they want, because states are not independent of the rest of the country. To be able to dictate things like who can marry whom or who can live where or who has a right to work, states would have to be free of Constitutional restrictions, which would mean they would have to be free of Federal oversight--which would mean no longer being part of the UNITED States of America. If some states really want that, that's okay by me, if they and their citizens have really thought through exactly what that would mean for them. I don't really think that there are more than one or two states that could survive if cut free of America, and certainly not the ones who are agitating loudest for "states' rights By God!" but if they want to try, more power to them
 
2012-10-24 01:03:33 AM
Fortunately for gay people, and other humans, that douchebag will never be President.
 
2012-10-24 01:05:34 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Fortunately for gay people, and other humans, that douchebag will never be President.


Don't be so sure. Romney owns voting machines in Ohio and other key states. He also probably owns 5 members of the SCOTUS. He might not win the election but he could end up stealing it.
 
2012-10-24 01:09:25 AM

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: Lionel Mandrake: Fortunately for gay people, and other humans, that douchebag will never be President.

Don't be so sure. Romney owns voting machines in Ohio and other key states. He also probably owns 5 members of the SCOTUS. He might not win the election but he could end up stealing it.


Ordinarily I'd dismiss that as tinfoil nuttery, but

img.timeinc.net

On to the Republican-controlled House. Yeah it is scary.
 
2012-10-24 01:09:33 AM

WorldCitizen: He's a heartless bastard if he does. So, yeah, probably.


1. If Romney does this, he's a heartless bastard. [Premise]
2. Romney is a heartless bastard [Assumption]
3. Thus, Romney will probably do this.

Fallacy: Affirming the consequent.

If A, then B. B, therefore, A.

E.g., If Joe is a Freeper, then he's a mouth breather. Joe's a mouth breather. So, probably, Joe's a Freeper. No, Joe could also be a Libtard.

E.g., If Mr. Rogers is a member of Al qaeda, then he is a terrorist. Mr. Rogers is a terrorist. So, probably, Mr. Rogers is a terrorist. No, Mr. Rogers could belong to Hezbollah, or the Irish Republican Army.
 
2012-10-24 01:10:17 AM

sendtodave: Mikey1969: Rename Obamacare "Romneycare"

Well, why not? That would fix the part that people don't like.

theobamapart.jpg


Pretty much. Scary thought that they will expel this much hatred while supporting the guy that inspired Obamacare.
 
2012-10-24 01:16:14 AM

whidbey: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: Lionel Mandrake: Fortunately for gay people, and other humans, that douchebag will never be President.

Don't be so sure. Romney owns voting machines in Ohio and other key states. He also probably owns 5 members of the SCOTUS. He might not win the election but he could end up stealing it.

Ordinarily I'd dismiss that as tinfoil nuttery, but

[img.timeinc.net image 400x527]

On to the Republican-controlled House. Yeah it is scary.


www.reformation.org

LBJ won a Texas election with his magical Precinct 13 ballot box. It always had just enough votes to let him win. He kept this photo with him in the White House. Used to chuckle over it.
 
2012-10-24 01:16:15 AM
It is absolutely stupid, and irresponsible to make threats against China as a goal for your first day in office. What point would it serve?

One of major goals of the USA created post-WWII international regime was to foster capitalism by providing markets for developing market goods. Fundamentally, this US policy has lifted the entire world economy. The goal has always been to use the power of economic capitalism and free markets to foster political liberalism and democratization. It is hardly time to reverse course on this policy.
 
2012-10-24 01:18:24 AM
This is one of those things I can't wrap my head around. Why is anyone regulating who gets to visit somebody in the hospital, other than the patient. I can see limiting the -number- of visitors per patient at one time, but it shouldn't matter who the hell it is, as long as the patient wants them there.

/Yes, that goes for you hospital admins too. Not your damn business who visits your customer.
 
2012-10-24 01:19:50 AM

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: Used to chuckle over it.


It was probably that guy on the far left. I'd bet he could you which way to vote.
 
2012-10-24 01:20:28 AM
tell
 
2012-10-24 01:22:45 AM

vpb: Yes, well this worked out well in the 1860's. Go for it Mittens.


well he wants more horses and bayonettes so....
 
2012-10-24 01:24:10 AM
Wow. I know subby is an idiot... bit no he didn't. Obama had the same view on it vexing a state matter until this year. Go screw. Romney would do nothing, he would leave it to the states. Seriously liberals. Stop lying. It makes you look silly. Romney would not put a federal mandate on no visitation rights. You are lying. Constantly.
 
2012-10-24 01:26:30 AM

MyRandomName: Seriously liberals. Stop lying. It makes you look silly. Romney would not put a federal mandate on no visitation rights. You are lying. Constantly.


The only "constant" I see here is your white-knighting.


I already know you're not a serious poster here, but anyone who might possibly entertain such thoughts need only refer to the Republican Party Platform, and you bet Romney is going to make sure gays cant get married or see each other in the hospital. Stop trolling.
 
2012-10-24 01:34:16 AM

MyRandomName: he would leave it to the states.


Which is actually a problem...
 
2012-10-24 01:35:30 AM
Maybe this would happen...
i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-24 01:35:32 AM
Ftfa:"This week Romney apparently believes that it should be up to the states to decide whether or not a spouse or child of gay and lesbian men and women should have the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital."

How does this come close to subby's headline?
 
2012-10-24 01:36:14 AM

WhyteRaven74: MyRandomName: he would leave it to the states.

Which is actually a problem...


And as usual, you boil it down with the voice of reason. Kudos as always.
 
2012-10-24 01:42:47 AM

tjfly: Ftfa:"This week Romney apparently believes that it should be up to the states to decide whether or not a spouse or child of gay and lesbian men and women should have the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital."

How does this come close to subby's headline?


Why the hell would you want to leave it to the states unless you want the states to ban it, especially since you know the deep red states will do so?
 
2012-10-24 01:48:16 AM

Bhasayate: WorldCitizen: He's a heartless bastard if he does. So, yeah, probably.

1. If Romney does this, he's a heartless bastard. [Premise]
2. Romney is a heartless bastard [Assumption]
3. Thus, Romney will probably do this.

Fallacy: Affirming the consequent.

If A, then B. B, therefore, A.

E.g., If Joe is a Freeper, then he's a mouth breather. Joe's a mouth breather. So, probably, Joe's a Freeper. No, Joe could also be a Libtard.

E.g., If Mr. Rogers is a member of Al qaeda, then he is a terrorist. Mr. Rogers is a terrorist. So, probably, Mr. Rogers is a terrorist. No, Mr. Rogers could belong to Hezbollah, or the Irish Republican Army.


I see you need to review pull out and pay careful attention to your Hurley.

/Start with Chapter 1.1.
 
2012-10-24 01:48:24 AM

colon_pow: the author built a beautiful strawman. then kicked it's ass!!

well done.


Do you not believe Romney will follow through on his pledges?
 
2012-10-24 01:56:23 AM

WorldCitizen: Amos Quito: WorldCitizen: /BE careful what you wish for

Federal marriage issues:

1) Immigration. I can't sponsor my spouse, even if legally married in the US, for a green card. That requires the feds not a state by state thing.
2) Federal taxes. My employer allows same-sex partner benefits such as health insurance. However, the feds, unlike with straight married couples, tax those benefits as income increasing my tax burden way above a straight married couple.
3) Inheritance. Many of the same issues with taxation.
4) Military spouse benefits (or lack of) for same-sex partners.

And as far as who chooses who can visit whom in the hospital, it should be the patient. However, the laws now don't always recognize that. My asshole brother who I hate could override my partner and not allow my partner to visit me or make decisions for me (if I'm not able to do so) because he's recognized as family and my partner is not. If I'm not able to make any decisions due to my condition, again, my partner could be completely refused any contact with me or decision making in favor of some other "family" member who I might not even like or want making decisions for me. Thus, we need legal protections for such things.

Americans should have equal rights regardless of where they are in the United States. Thank you, 14th Amendment.


Aaaand you're immediately blind to the FACT that the ONLY reason you have ANY of these rights in ANY state is because of "state's rights".

I agree with you on every point, but you ASSUME that IF the fed is given supreme dictatorial power, it will ALWAYS do what YOU want.

It won't, and when it doesn't, you won't have the option of petitioning for redress at the STATE level, or moving to another state. You'll have to either bite the bullet, or leave the country.

I agree that it is good to let a state experiment with many things as long as it does not LIMIT a right otherwise provided to Americans outside of that state. Yes, it has been the more progressive ...


The important distinction is the Federal government, in this case, is saying the state cannot limit the rights of a certain group.

This leads to the ever present question of does the 14th in many ways, supersede the 10th. In a very weird way, it states that any states laws automatically become federal law.

Of course, I am not a lawyer, so this is my layman interpretation.

As a side note, just as many (or more) states are trying to limit (or stop) same sex marriage as are progressing it.
 
2012-10-24 02:15:34 AM

Ghastly: Nadie_AZ: Huh. And the Log Cabin Republicans just endorsed him, saying he'll be too busy fixing the economy to legislate against their agenda.

Log Cabin Republicans are the urban professional gays with enough money that they think they'll be able to just buy their way out of any problems caused by legislation that makes gays second class citizens. Everyone I've talked to has been of the attitude "well I'm not really using my rights anyway and I'd really rather have money than rights when it comes right down to it". A lot of them are either very young gays who have no idea what it was like when cops used to bust into gay bars and crack open skulls just for shiats and giggles, or from rich families and grew up with an attitude that rich people do and should have more rights than the poor because they're a better class of people which is obvious because if they weren't better then they wouldn't be rich.


In other words, they're typical Republicans. The problem with the modern GOP is a complete inability to empathize with people who come from a different background and this is part and parcel with all of that.
 
2012-10-24 02:16:35 AM

whidbey: And as usual, you boil it down with the voice of reason. Kudos as always.


The dirty underbelly of states rights, you leave it to states to decide that some Americans aren't equal to others.
 
2012-10-24 02:20:58 AM

timujin: colon_pow: the author built a beautiful strawman. then kicked it's ass!!

well done.

Do you not believe Romney will follow through on his pledges?


You'll need to be a little more specific. Some of my developers have a version control system that works well, but even it can only handle 2-3 revisions per second before two changes will corrupt each other. With Romney, we'll need to go down to millisecond versioning.
 
2012-10-24 02:22:10 AM

dethmagnetic: One of Mitt Romney's possible first actions if he were elected president would be to eliminate hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples

...why? How does that help anyone, anywhere?


Because Religion.
 
2012-10-24 02:47:48 AM
Way to keep the federal government out of our lives eh GOP?
 
2012-10-24 02:50:41 AM

Old enough to know better: Way to keep the federal government out of our lives eh GOP?


They keep the government out of their lives. Yours are completely game if not a necessity.
 
2012-10-24 03:03:03 AM

WhyteRaven74: The dirty underbelly of states rights, you leave it to states to decide that some Americans aren't equal to others.


Indeed. Many people forget that states rights are not civil rights and civil rights should not be voted on by the masses.
 
2012-10-24 03:06:48 AM

BravadoGT: Mmm.....like the smell of liberal desperation in the air! It smells like....victory.


Adorable!
 
2012-10-24 03:07:05 AM
fark that guy.
 
Displayed 50 of 260 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report